DELEGATED ITEM REPORT

FULL PLANNING APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY CONTEMPORARY STYLE EXTENSION, TO THE EAST GABLE ELEVATION OF 7 STOCKS BROW (GRADE II LISTED BUILDING), TINTWISTLE.

Planning Case Officer: SC P File No: 829 Authorised by: JK 5/10/12 NP Number: HPK07120696 Date of Report: 3/10/2012

National Guidance: NPPF Regional Guidance: 1, 2, 8 Core Strategy: GSP1/2/3, L3 Local Plan Codes: LC4, LC5, LC6, LH4, LT11

List of Background Papers (not previously published) Nil

Human Rights

Any human rights issues have been considered and addressed in the preparation of this report.

Report:

Site and surroundings

7 Stocks Brow is a grade II listed dwelling constructed from coursed natural gritstone beneath a gritstone slate roof and set within a fairly large plot. The property is highly traditional in its character with its curtilage bounded by natural gritstone walls on all sides. The property is sited towards the centre of Tintwistle and within the Conservation Area of the village.

Proposal

Full Planning permission is being sought, alongside an application for Listed Building Consent, (NPHPK07120696) for an extension of contemporary flat roofed design, in the form of an arc, which would link to the east gable elevation of the listed building and extending approx 34 metres eastwards into the garden area. The front and side elevations are primarily glazed with intermittent areas of stone under a flat sedum roof. The extension would provide additional living accommodation that comprises a snug room, bedroom, open plan living area, kitchen and a link to a home office, all of which can be accessed via a rear corridor, running the whole length of the proposed extension.

Key issues

The main issues in the determination of this application relate to the massing and scale of the proposed extension and its impact upon the special interest of the host listed building, its setting within the Conservation Area; (including the setting of the nearby listed Tintwistle Sunday school to the south) and the impact upon neighbour’s amenity.

Continued over Relevant history

2000 - Extension to dwelling HPK0999126 - granted 2005 - Retain consent for extension to dwelling NP/HPK/0205/0136 – granted 2010 - Retain consent for extension to dwelling NP/HPK/0310/0247 – withdrawn 2011 - Full planning permission for the erection of timber gates NP/HPK/0511/0397 - granted 2011 - LBC for a semi sunken extension to the eastern elevation NP/HPK/0711/0737- withdrawn. 2011 - Full permission for a semi sunken extension to the eastern elevation NP/HPK/0711/0736- withdrawn

Pre-application advice, whilst accepting that a contemporary design may be acceptable in this instance, has always maintained, that any new extension should be of a subordinate scale and size, that would complement and not adversely affect the relationship between a new extension and the existing Listed Building.

The Development Plan

Main relevant Policies

GSP3 requires that particular attention is paid to the impact on the character and setting of buildings and that the design is in accord with the Authority’s Design Guide and development is appropriate to the character and appearance of the National Park.

Policy L3 is particularly relevant, as it deals with Cultural heritage Assets. It explains that development must conserve and where appropriate enhance or reveal the significance of historic assets and their setting. Other than in exceptional circumstances development will not be permitted where it is likely to cause harm to the significance of any cultural heritage asset or its setting.

Policy LC4 clearly states, that where development is acceptable in principle, it will be permitted provided that its detailed treatment is of a high standard that respects, conserves and where possible it enhances the landscape, built environment and other valued characteristics of the area, and the degree to which design details, materials and finishes reflect or complement the style and traditions of local buildings.

LC5, states that applications for development in a Conservation Area, or for development that affects it’s setting or important views into or out of the area, should assess and clearly demonstrate how the existing character and appearance of the Conservation Area will be preserved and, where possible, enhanced.

Policy LC6 in particular confers that, planning applications for development affecting a listed building and/or its setting should clearly demonstrate how these will be preserved and where possible enhanced; and why the proposed development and related works are desirable or necessary.

LH4, states, extensions and alterations to dwellings will be permitted provided that the proposal does not detract from the character, appearance or amenity of the original building, its setting or neighbouring buildings. Dominate the original dwelling where it is of architectural, historic or vernacular merit amount to the creation of a separate dwelling or an annexe that could be used as a separate dwelling

Continued over Policy LT11: Residential parking, states, that the design and number of parking spaces associated with residential development, including any communal residential parking, must respect the valued characteristics of the area, particularly in Conservation Areas.

Adopted Building Design Guidance – 1987 & 2007

Other policies

National

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 27 March 2012 and replaced a significant proportion of central government planning policy with immediate effect. The Government’s intention is that the document should be considered to be a material consideration and carry particular weight where a development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date.

In the National Park the development plan comprises the East Midlands Regional Plan 2009, the Authority’s Core Strategy 2011 and saved policies in the Peak District National Park Local Plan 2001. Policies in the Development Plan provide a clear starting point consistent with the National Park’s statutory purposes for the determination of this application. It is considered that in this case there is no significant conflict between prevailing policies in the Development Plan and more recent Government guidance in the NPPF with regard to the issues that are raised.

Regional

Regional Plan (EMRP) Policy 1 states, that all strategies, plans and programmes having a special impact should protect and enhance the environmental quality of rural settlements, by promoting high quality design which reflects local distinctiveness. Policy 2 promotes better design, including the use of design led approaches which take account of local and historic character. Policy 8 sets out the spatial priorities for the Peak Sub Area and the most notable of these include securing the conservation and enhancement of the National Park.

Core Strategy

Policy GSP1 states, that all policies in the Core Strategy must be read in combination and where there is an irreconcilable conflict between the statutory purposes, the Sandford principle will be applied and the conservation and enhancement of the National Park will be given priority. Policy GSP2 states, that opportunities for enhancing the valued characteristics of the national Park will be identified and acted upon. Proposals intended to enhance the National Park will need to demonstrate that they offer significant overall benefit to the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area.

Officer assessment

Principle

There are no objections in principle to extending the dwelling, subject to satisfactory scale, design and external appearance. In particular, Policy LH4 allows such extensions, the pretext indicating that, in general, extensions amounting to about 25% of the original floorspace of the dwelling are likely to be acceptable. Further advice is provided in the 2007 Design Guide where it states, ‘Extensions that are limited to less than 25% of the original building are more likely to be approved’. Design advice is provided in the 2007 Design Guide where it states, ‘Extensions that are limited to less than 25% of the original building are more likely to be approved’.

Continued over Impact on Listed dwellinghouse

The floorspace of the existing dwelling has been estimated at 143 sq metres. The floorspace of the proposed extension amounts to an approximate 97 sq metres, a 67% increase over the existing, which is much greater than the recommended guidance stated above. It is considered the reduction in size offered by the applicant (as opposed to the previously withdrawn scheme, (NP/HPK/0711/0736) is fairly minimal. In terms of the physical impact of the proposed development, it is considered that the overall scale, form and massing of the extension would be such that it would dominate the existing house to the detriment of its special interest and setting. In this case, the extension has a longer frontage length than the Listed Building, therefore despite the extensions low height; it would inevitably reduce the dominance of the original listed building.

Impact on Conservation Area

The extension by virtue of its size and siting can be seen from the road (Stocks Brow). From this view, the proposal would be minimised to a degree, by a combination of the main dwelling, entrance gates and boundary walling. However, given the size and scale of the extension in relation to the existing dwelling and its immediate surroundings, Officers consider the proposal would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the village Conservation Area within which the proposal is sited.

Other issues

A listed Sunday school, which boundary abuts the development site, is located to the south. In this instance, owing to the contemporary flat roofed design of the proposed extension and the degree of separation (approx 20m away from the rear of the school building), the setting and amenity of the school would not be unduly compromised. It is also considered the extension would not impact directly on any neighbouring dwellings. The nearest properties (Lower Square) are sited directly behind the development and in a much higher location.

Conclusion

It is considered that the overall scale, form and massing of the extension would be such that it would dominate the existing house to the detriment of its special interest and setting. In addition the proposal would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the village Conservation Area. Consequently, in the absence of any material considerations that would indicate otherwise, the National Park Authority has no other option but to refuse planning permission in this case.

Consultation:

Highways - No objections, subject to applicant maintaining 3 no. off-street parking spaces as any under provision may result in vehicles being parked on Stocks Brow, a situation considered against the best interests of safe and efficient flow of traffic on the public highway.

Parish – no comment to date

Representations

Two letters of support and two letters stating no objections to the plans have been received during the application process. Reasons for refusal:

The massing of the proposed extension would be disproportionate in terms of size and scale to the existing dwelling, failing to preserve the setting and amenity of the Listed Building and the conservation area within which it is sited, therefore intrinsically harming their special historic interest.